Remanded

Abdul Nazar Pulikkal, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Ottapalam

Kerala HC22 Aug 2023WP(C)/12363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the Sub Collector's orders rejecting applications to remove land from the Paddy Land Data Bank and change its nature, directing the Sub Collector to obtain a KSREC report and reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

Form-5 and Form-6 applications set aside; petitioner directed to submit for KSREC report; case remanded for reconsideration within two months.

Abdul Nazar Pulikkal, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12363 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABDUL NAZAR PULIKKAL,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ABU, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PEREMUDIYOOR P.O,
MUTHUTHALA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, KERALA – 679303

¶7

BY ADV AJMAL P.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101

¶10

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHUTHALA VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303

¶11

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THE MUTHUTHALA VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679303

¶12

SMT.RESHMI K.M, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2023

¶18

The petitioner is owner of 2.43 Ares of property in Block

¶19

No.27 of Muthuthala Village of Pattambi Taluk in Palakkad District.

¶20

The petitioner states that the petitioner’s land was lying as Purayidam even in the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force. However, the land was described as paddy land in Revenue records and when the Data Bank was constituted under the Act, the land was erroneously included in the Data Bank. Subsequently, when the petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes, he submitted an application in Form-5 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank, invoking the provisions of Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶21

¶22

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶23

The petitioner also filed an application in Form-6, invoking Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 2008 seeking to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. The Form-5 and Form6 applications submitted by the petitioner stand rejected as per the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶24

The petitioner states that the impugned order would indicate that the Sub Collector, Ottapalam has not made any site visit while taking a decision. Relevant facts were not considered. The Sub Collector has passed orders solely based on a report of the Agricultural Officer, Muthuthala. Whether the land in question is fit for cultivating paddy or whether paddy cultivation is going on anywhere near the land, these factors were not considered by the Sub Collector. If scientific data was obtained by the Sub Collector, he would have come to a conclusion that the petitioner’s land stood converted much prior to the year 2008. In the facts of the case, orders rejecting the Form-5 and Form-6 applications of the petitioner are liable to be interfered with, contended the

¶25

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶26

¶27

counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Senior Government Pleader entered appearance

¶29

and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee had made a site inspection and it was based on a fact finding report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee that the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, has filed the report. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the land was converted prior to the year 2008 in any manner whatsoever. There are no buildings in the petitioner’s property, constructed prior to the year 2008. There are no trees in the petitioner’s property which were planted before the year 2008. In the circumstances, the Sub Collector was justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶31

¶32

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶33

Ext.P4 is the order of the Sub Collector, Ottapalam rejecting the Form-5 application of the petitioner. A reading of Ext.P4 would show that the Agricultural Officer, Muthuthala has given a report that there is nothing to come to a conclusion that the land was converted prior to the year 2008. Ext.P4 order does not indicate that the land of the petitioner is fit for paddy cultivation. It does not indicate that there is paddy cultivation anywhere near the land of the petitioner. All the lands situated near the property of the petitioner are well developed with residential buildings and other constructions.

¶34

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Sub Collector, Ottapalam ought to have obtained scientific data before coming to a conclusion as regards the nature of the land of the petitioner as it stood in the year 2008.

¶35

In the circumstances, Ext.P4 order rejecting the Form-5 application of the petitioner is set aside. As the Form-

¶36

6 application is also based on Ext.P4 order on Form-5, Ext.P5

¶37

¶38

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶39

order on Form-6 application is also set aside.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of ordering that if the petitioner submits an application to the 3^rd respondentAgricultural Officer for obtaining KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, then the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Ottapalam shall reconsider the Form-5 and Form-6 applications of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the KSREC Report.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) Nos.12363 of 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12363/2023

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1TRUECOPYOFTHEPOSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DT.02-02-2022 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHUTHALA
VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT
Exhibit P2THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
ALONG WITH THE ADJACENT BUILDING
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.03.2022
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.05.2022ISSUEDBYTHE1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02.06.2022ISSUEDBYTHE1ST
RESPONDENT

Abdul Nazar Pulikkal, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Ottapalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nazar Pulikkal, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer Ottapalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.A. Kunju Mohammed Vs the Secretary

Beena Faizal Vs the Autorized Officer

P. Subha Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode

P.v.Sunanda, Vs Thekkekara Grama Panchayath

Jayashree Kumar, Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Afsal Rasheed P., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Ottapalam